Poor or no rear vision

[matacaster]

Many vehicles have significant blind spots where they can't see what's behind. Some vehicles actually have notice saying they can't see you. Surely in the age of cheap cameras NO vehicle should be considered roadworthy unless there is a clear view of the rear and sides?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many vehicles have significant blind spots where they can't see what's behind. Some vehicles actually have notice saying they can't see you. Surely in the age of cheap cameras NO vehicle should be considered roadworthy unless there is a clear view of the rear and sides?

I cannot disagree with this. There is no longer justification for vehicles to have blind spots. Cameras can cover them.

I think TfL are pushing that way already but I would very much like to see it as law, including for retrofit after a suitable transitional period and including any vehicles entering the UK from outside.

 

[zwk500]

I think a retrofit is unlikely, given the sheer number of vehicles e.g. vans that would need to be fitted. Certainly they should be standard for new vehicles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a retrofit is unlikely, given the sheer number of vehicles e.g. vans that would need to be fitted. Certainly they should be standard for new vehicles.

I would be surprised - astonished - if London at least doesn't mandate retrofit on HGVs and PCVs within 10 years if not vans. The high volume of on-road cyclists compared with elsewhere in the UK makes the risk much higher there.

 

[zwk500]

I would be surprised - astonished - if London at least doesn't mandate retrofit on HGVs and PCVs within 10 years if not vans. The high volume of on-road cyclists compared with elsewhere in the UK makes the risk much higher there.

10 years maybe. I hope they do, London needs to push big vehicles out as much as possible.

 

[adamedwards]

London is leading the way on things like direct vision cabs (lower cabs with glass doors) and requires that all HGVs on their contracts use them. This is then pushing the contractors to buy those vehicles. I don't know if other councils do the same, but eventually this will lead to a significant reduction in high cab blind spot lorries. (I have been at a cycling event and sat in a high cab of an HGV and the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists is really bad.)

 

[Towers]

It's very difficult to back date legal regulations relating to vehicles, hence why it's still entirely legal to drive a car without seatbelts if they weren't required when it was built. That said, it does appear that avenues do exist for local authorities to set certain requirements, as per things like ULEZ restrictions and so on, so maybe something would be possible relating to blind spots in locations that wished to enforce it. I agree that London would likely lead the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's very difficult to back date legal regulations relating to vehicles, hence why it's still entirely legal to drive a car without seatbelts if they weren't required when it was built. That said, it does appear that avenues do exist for local authorities to set certain requirements, as per things like ULEZ restrictions and so on, so maybe something would be possible relating to blind spots in locations that wished to enforce it. I agree that London would likely lead the way.

Though in reality lorries and buses don't stay on the road very long now (as they're worked so hard), so making it a requirement for new vehicles would very quickly phase it in. A bit like there are now very few cars left without a catalytic converter (petrol) or DPF (diesel) despite retrofit only being required in a few urban areas.

 

[Towers]

Though in reality lorries and buses don't stay on the road very long now (as they're worked so hard), so making it a requirement for new vehicles would very quickly phase it in. A bit like there are now very few cars left without a catalytic converter (petrol) or DPF (diesel) despite retrofit only being required in a few urban areas.

True. Buses are now routinely covered in an array of cameras (including those replacing traditional mirrors in some cases), and so having an additional bank of monitors for blind spots isn't a major leap really. The same really ought to be easily possible on HGVs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True. Buses are now routinely covered in an array of cameras (including those replacing traditional mirrors in some cases), and so having an additional bank of monitors for blind spots isn't a major leap really. The same really ought to be easily possible on HGVs.

It's quite likely that companies will choose to retrofit, too, because reducing collisions saves cost on their insurance premium and on the excess for repairs.

 

[Towers]

It's quite likely that companies will choose to retrofit, too, because reducing collisions saves cost on their insurance premium and on the excess for repairs.

Indeed, insurance is a massive issue. Although slightly less so for the big groups, who tend to be self-insured.

TfL have had a significantly higher spec for buses used on their routes for years now, and very often those requirements slowly filter down to regional fleets. I could imagine that camera requirements could easily go the same way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, insurance is a massive issue. Although slightly less so for the big groups, who tend to be self-insured.

I'm sure I read something recently saying that the facility to make a deposit to avoid third party insurance being mandatory was going away or had done, because the deposit would need to be impossibly large (with Great Heck etc in mind). They might of course choose to self-insure for repairs to their own vehicles caused by their own drivers, of course, as any driver can if they wish.

There are of course still workarounds. For instance the Scout Association self-insures quite heavily through a subsidiary insurance company (Scout Insurance Services (Guernsey) Ltd) and only reinsures very large risks on the market, I don't see any reason why a bus or lorry company couldn't do the same if large enough to make it viable.

 

[E27007]

Google "Back up collisions" or read a vwikipaedia link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-up_collision

SUVs where parents reverse over children in the driveway of the home, the rear view is restricted, the height of the vehicle creates a long "killing zone" blind spot behind the vehicle

I'm sure I read something recently saying that the facility to make a deposit to avoid third party insurance being mandatory was going away or had done, because the deposit would need to be impossibly large (with Great Heck etc in mind). They might of course choose to self-insure for repairs to their own vehicles caused by their own drivers, of course, as any driver can if they wish.

There are of course still workarounds. For instance the Scout Association self-insures quite heavily through a subsidiary insurance company (Scout Insurance Services (Guernsey) Ltd) and only reinsures very large risks on the market, I don't see any reason why a bus or lorry company couldn't do the same if large enough to make it viable.

British Railway / BR used to self-insure for their huge fleet of vehicles, the only organisation I have known to have such an arrangement, I worked for a company said to have the largest fleet of vans in UK, they did not self-insure, they had conventional cover and issued a insurance cover certificate on request from a driver. I thought the practice of self-insurance had been abandoned

 

[John Webb]

....British Railway / BR used to self-insure for their huge fleet of vehicles, the only organisation I have known to have such an arrangement, I worked for a company said to have the largest fleet of vans in UK, they did not self-insure, they had conventional cover and issued a insurance cover certificate on request from a driver. I thought the practice of self-insurance had been abandoned

When I was working in the Civil Service 1969-1997 the government self-insured all their vehicles. I assume that still goes on?

 

[delt1c]

how did we survive in the 70's and 80,s when wing and door mirrors were extras . having worked for London Transport {Buses} the RM's we had, the mirrors sufficied

 

[gg1]

how did we survive in the 70's and 80,s when wing and door mirrors were extras . having worked for London Transport {Buses} the RM's we had, the mirrors sufficied

70s and 80s cars did have the rather big advantage over today's cars of it generally being possible to clearly see all 4 corners of the car from the drivers seat.

re door/wing mirrors, I know passenger side ones were optional until the late 80s but thought drivers mirrors had been compulsory for decades by that point.

 

[stuu]

how did we survive in the 70's and 80,s when wing and door mirrors were extras . having worked for London Transport {Buses} the RM's we had, the mirrors sufficied

Three times as many people died on the roads each year in the 1970s compared to now... so a great many people didn't survive

 

[XAM2175]

how did we survive in the 70's and 80,s when wing and door mirrors were extras . having worked for London Transport {Buses} the RM's we had, the mirrors sufficied

Three times as many people died on the roads each year in the 1970s compared to now... so a great many people didn't survive

Yeah, not for nothing is there a name for this kind of logic in statistics:

Survivorship bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Herefordian]

Many vehicles have significant blind spots where they can't see what's behind. Some vehicles actually have notice saying they can't see you. Surely in the age of cheap cameras NO vehicle should be considered roadworthy unless there is a clear view of the rear and sides?

The worst one I've come across is the 8th gen Honda Civic.

The rear spoiler makes it impossible to get a clear view of what's behind.

Rubbish design.